Thank you! Yes, we say your bug report, and I think Eugene will look at adding block evaluation to fix it.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:34 AM William Tambellini <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Rasmus, > Thanks. If I could help (test, profil, ...), please email me. If I > remember right, as today, these ops are still faster via Matrix vs Tensor: > - reductions > http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=1614 > http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=1628 > - gemv > http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=1648 > - transpose > http://eigen.tuxfamily.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=1627 > Kind > W. > > William Tambellini | Senior Software Developer | SDL Los Angeles | > [email protected] > http://www.sdl.com > <http://bit.ly/2LB1qRN> > *Share yourfeedback with us* <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PYF190816> > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Rasmus Munk Larsen <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 21, 2019 9:04 AM > *To:* eigen <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor > > Hi William, > > Eugene Zhulenev's work on the new BlockV2 evaluation framework, should > make it a lot easier to address some of the performance issues you are > seeing, including adding block evaluation for concat. So far, TensorFlow as > been using a custom concat operation that does not use Eigen, so we never > thought to address this. But if we can make it fast in Eigen and get rid of > custom code for this op, we will. > > Rasmus > > On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 6:52 PM William Tambellini <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Ok for me. Specially if that could ease to resolve the speed issues of the > Tensor module. > Kind > WT. > > <http://bit.ly/2LB1qRN> > *Share your feedback with us* <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PYF190816> > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Christoph Hertzberg <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2019 10:03 AM > *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [eigen] Should we require c++11 for Eigen tensor > > Hi! > > I think some time ago there was some opposition against that step -- in > fact, originally C++03 was only introduced after the first versions of > the Tensor module. > > I can't find a reference to that discussion at the moment, I think it > concerned supporting Tensor for some GPU architecture. But this was a > few years ago, and compilers likely evolved since then. > > So unless there is an outcry on this list, I'm not against dropping > C++03 support of the Tensor module. > > > For transitioning it would of course be nice to have a clear "latest > working" version which still supports C++03, one possibility would be to > make that with the 3.4 release. OTOH, this will just complicate > maintenance and Tensors are still "unsupported" for a reason (e.g., not > having to spend unnecessary time to support them ...) > > So just making a clear cut before 3.4 sounds actually better -- this > will also simplify to maintain the upcoming 3.4 and master versions in > parallel (I guess the 3.3.x version of the Tensor module has barely been > touched in recent years). > > > Cheers, > Christoph > > On 18/10/2019 18.46, Rasmus Munk Larsen wrote: > > Dear Eigen tensor users, > > > > Today, various c++11 features are in use in many parts of Eigen tensor, > > while other parts compile with c++03 without warnings. This division is > > rather arbitrary and primarily dictated by what parts of the code gets > > compiled for the subset of tests that are enabled in c++03 mode: > > > > > https://bitbucket.org/eigen/eigen/src/default/unsupported/test/CMakeLists.txt#lines-112 > > > > A larger set of tests covering the majority of the code base are only > > compiled in c++11 mode: > > > https://bitbucket.org/eigen/eigen/src/c4368f48fef3737ef5a48604cfc63ce946b68616/unsupported/test/CMakeLists.txt#lines-179 > > > > I don't think a user can realistically use Eigen tensor and avoid the > c++11 > > parts of the code. Therefore I would propose that we stop pretending that > > Eigen tensor supports c++03 and simply guard all the code with > > EIGEN_HAS_CXX11 or similar. This will then allow us to start cleaning up > > the code. > > > > Please let me know if you have any objections to this. > > > > Best, > > Rasmus > > > > -- > Dr.-Ing. Christoph Hertzberg > > Besuchsadresse der Nebengeschäftsstelle: > DFKI GmbH > Robotics Innovation Center > Robert-Hooke-Straße 5 > 28359 Bremen, Germany > > Postadresse der Hauptgeschäftsstelle Standort Bremen: > DFKI GmbH > Robotics Innovation Center > Robert-Hooke-Straße 1 > 28359 Bremen, Germany > > Tel.: +49 421 178 45-4021 <+49%20421%20178454021> > Zentrale: +49 421 178 45-0 > E-Mail: [email protected] > > Weitere Informationen: http://www.dfki.de/robotik > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH > Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany > > Geschäftsführung: > Prof. Dr. Jana Koehler (Vorsitzende) > Dr. Walter Olthoff > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: > Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes > Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Click here > <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/ELeTgw_9Q__GX2PQPOmvUizKrmxxhcEGMKpSJFYoHVK-Z8uO7HUp62mTmkAYMGtVR8AB6krnmzENCU1_U1Tbvw==> > to report this email as spam. >
